get_harness_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns a structured summary of specific harness components and validation warnings, implicitly suggesting a read-only operation via 'Get'. It does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or output format, leaving some ambiguity, but the listed contents give some behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's output and differentiates from a sibling tool. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists what the summary includes (connectors, wires, cables, connections, validation warnings) and positions it relative to 'get_harness'. It could mention error behavior or response format, but given the tool's simplicity and existing schema coverage, this is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'harness_id' as a 'Harness UUID', providing 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond that, so it does not add value over the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'harness summary', listing specific components (connectors, wires, cables, connections, validation warnings). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_harness' by stating 'More concise than get_harness', making its purpose clear and distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a concise summary of a legacy harness is needed, and it directly contrasts with 'get_harness' ('More concise than get_harness'). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or mention alternative tools beyond get_harness, so it falls short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.